User talk:Kollision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Welcome to my talk page! Please feel free to leave a message here, but remember to:

  • Place new messages at the bottom of the page, not at the top. This preserves the chronological order for the page.
  • Separate topic sections with a ==Descriptive header==.
  • Sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~)
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 - Archive 2


Alpha and omega 2[edit]

Their will be a alpha and omega 2 and many websites including wiki help said their will be one. Even entertainment weekly said their will be one. Look at talk in the article of alpha and omega. It said there will be a possible sequel. And simple English Wikipedia said. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodj123 (talkcontribs) 22:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia's core policies is Verifiability. This means that whenever something contentious or possibly contentious is added to Wikipedia, a reliable source must be provided. Some examples of reliable sources include books, newspapers, magazines and websites written by people of some authority (eg. professional journalists). This policy ensures that the information on Wikipedia is accurate. Wikipedia does not deal in rumors. The Wikipedia Talk page and the Simple English Wikipedia do not count as reliable sources that can be used to source information on Wikipedia (you cannot use Wikipedia as a source on Wikipedia). The Entertainment Weekly article would be considered a reliable source, except that it is no longer available. My guess is that it proved to be untrue and was taken down, if it even existed. If it was true, the news would have been rereported by other publications. I have not been able to find a single reliable source that says an Alpha and Omega sequel is in development or production. If it was in development or production, the studio would have announced it and there would definitely be multiple sources reporting about it. Face it, an Alpha and Omega sequel is not in production. It is only until a reliable source that says otherwise is found that the information can be added to the article. - Kollision (talk) 06:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Academy awards nominations[edit]

This time of year, that page is one of the top searched items on google. Having that page as a title (academy awards nominations) raises the wikipedia rank on the google search, it also provides the information that most readers are looking for. They want to see what the nominations are, and if they so chose they can click on the main article for more information. There is currently no page that offers readers a simple and accurate list of nominations without adds or lots of other information the user is not interested in reading. By having a page like this, readers have the info they want, links to articles on the movies, directors, this years academy awards and the history of the awards all in once place. I have watched the search rank of this page go higher and higher per day and I checked the stats and the amount of people accessing this page began at a rank of 500 hits a day and grew, which for me at least, shows that many readers, as I've said, would like to have a simple and accurate page with nominations and links to other articles if they so chose to click on them. I hope I've made sense here. --Shabidoo | Talk 00:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

There was also some (admittedly small) amount of extra information in the introduction and in the infobox. --Shabidoo | Talk 00:33, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
85th Academy Awards Nominations 2013 now redirects to 85th Academy Awards, which contains all the nominations. Having two articles with the same information was pointless and we usually don't branch off into smaller articles unless the main article gets too long, which is not the case here. The article title has no bearing on this, people will not have any problems finding this list. All that Google stuff has no bearing on this either; we do not change the way we do things just because it may result in a higher rank on Google. If someone clicks the link to '85th Academy Awards Nominations 2013' on Google they will be redirected to '85th Academy Awards'. In time, the link to '85th Academy Awards Nominations 2013' will probably be removed from Google and the rank for '85th Academy Awards' will also go up. - Kollision (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes...when you put it that way, that does make sense. --Shabidoo | Talk 07:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Film[edit]

Regarding the discussion about coordinators at WT:FILM, I set up a long time ago the agenda you linked to. These were my own ideas, and they may have been proposed in too much of a top-down fashion. Discussions at WT:FILMC were never very fulfilling, so I've grown cynical about the notion of collaboration, both formal and informal. Thankfully we have a healthy general talk page that can resolve disputes and build consensus on a case-by-case basis. It may be that WikiProject Film has too much structure (especially with the unused task forces) and we need to get back to basics, such as empowering editors with their own tools. (My recent "Recommended pages" posting is one attempt at that.) In the past, I talked to Peppage (talk · contribs) about having a bot that could address the more tedious editing tasks, but that never got finalized. If you have suggestions about what to do with WikiProject Film and whether or not it involves coordinators, I'm happy to hear you out. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: alpha and omega 2[edit]

If you type in alpha and omega in google look at the right and it says in there"sequel: Alpha And Omega 2" but it's unchangeable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodj123 (talkcontribs) 17:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

That is still not a reliable source. The Knowledge Graph pulls information from a variety of sources including Wikipedia itself. It is actually quite likely that Google's "Alpha and Omega 2" information was retrieved from when the information was still in the Alpha and Omega Wikipedia article and it has taken some time for the update to flow through. - Kollision (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it got the sequel info from Wikipedia and also look at alpha and omega's Facebook page and it says would you like to see an alpha and omega 2 and over 1500 people said yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodj123 (talkcontribs) 22:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't mean anything; "Would you like to see an Alpha and Omega 2?" is not the same as "Alpha and Omega 2 is in development." Like I said before, until a reliable source confirms Alpha and Omega 2 is in development, it isn't happening. - Kollision (talk) 05:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Surprise. I saw a shooting star and said to have alpha and omega 2 be a movie And now there is a alpha and omega series and the first of the series is alpha and omega 2: A howl-iday adventure. Shooting stars do make wishes real.Rodj123 (talk) 14:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment[edit]

Hey Kollision; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

3 movie contract for lionsgate and crest animation.[edit]

They had a 3 movie contract and they only did 1 then the upcoming on would be norm of the north but what's the 3rd? Would it be alpha and omega 2? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodj123 (talkcontribs) 15:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The third film has not yet been announced. Whether it will be or won't be Alpha and Omega 2 is a matter of speculation. Wikipedia deals with verifiable facts, not rumors or speculation. - Kollision (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Mia Frye[edit]

Hi, I have made an article about an actress called Mia Frye she appeared in the Nikita film that you have edited. If you know french and can update her article please do. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bruce Weber (photographer) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

An RfC that you may be interested in...[edit]

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on it's talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 18:27, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Vimeo[edit]

Saw that you made the last modification to the template, might you be able to add support for album ?

For example
WurmWoodeT 22:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hypermetabolism may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • signals an underlying issue, it is one of the body’s strongest defenses against illness and injury].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)